Forum:First Chamber
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, in which the Members of the Congress propose bills and debate them. The Second Chamber is where they are eventually voted. Paradoxically, Lovia does not have a bicameral parliament: there is only one group of MOTCs that both debates and votes the proposals. For the current composition of Congress, see this. As prescribed by Article 6 of the Constitution, all Lovian citizens "may write and propose motions to the Federal Law", that "are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber." The MOTCs' duty is to "read the motion and form a personal opinion about it. In order to obtain the support of a majority of Members of the Congress, changes may be proposed in the First Chamber." If a majority is likely to be found, the proposer will move the bill to the Second Chamber for a vote. The First Chamber is not a popular assembly where all citizens can express their personal interests. Polling the population ought to happen outside of Congress. __TOC__ 042. Bringing back the local police. I think we should bring back the local police. This would give people who don't want to do politics or do politics as well another opportunity to contribute to Lovia. Only states, cities and Train Village will have their own police service. What do you think. Happy65 Talk CNP ''' ' 16:34, November 5, 2012 (UTC) Not really necessary, as we are a small nation and the police aren't very active once their page has been written. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:44, November 5, 2012 (UTC) : The Police Reform that happened a while ago basically brought them back in the form of Local Bureaus. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 22:46, November 5, 2012 (UTC) ::: Haappy you're new but in the past (2010) we had three levels, Federal, State and Local. We eliminated local (though i think we should bring it back as a puppet just because no nation has no local government) government because wereas state governors and federal congressmen were elected and have power written out local mayors (opposing parties and those on the same side) would act like dictators and stop real reform. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:44, November 5, 2012 (UTC) ::::Currently the only city that has any local government is Hurbanova, but the government is unofficial, so it doesn't really count. On top of this, the "local government" is just a ceremonial mayor I.E. Oos Wes Llava, and he doesn't do much as mayor. I'm with Marcus though, because as he said, "What country doesn't have local government?" I think the local government should just be a mayor, police force, and firefighters though (a council would be a little excessive as we don't have enough members.) --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:49, November 5, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I'm against them having any power though xD completely cerimonial because what happened is that edit wars happened and nothing could get done. I'm Pro state and federal powers Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:34, November 6, 2012 (UTC) :::::::Fair enough, I wasn't here when they were abolished, so now that I know that, it would make more sense for them to be simply ceremonial. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:47, November 6, 2012 (UTC) Marcus, we did have a local government, but no local police. I agree that we should bring them back as fake positions, though. Also, Newhaven has an unofficial government of Yuri Medvedev as mayor in addition to Hurb's government. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:24, November 6, 2012 (UTC) We had a local police for most places, Train Village Police, Noble City Police, but I have to agree we should have a local government that has hardly any power so bigger and local parties expand instead of having to close them all down. ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 07:42, November 6, 2012 (UTC) 043. Settlement Act Revision Hi, now that we have a "realistic" population and census style, I think we should make some revisions to the Settlement Act: *# Lovian settlements are classified into one of these five groups: hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities. *# Congress must recognize a settlements by a simple majority before the settlement can become an official hamlet, village, neighborhood, town, or city of Lovia. *# A hamlet is a very small settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement. *## A hamlet must: *### Have a population of at least ten and at most five hundred. *#### If a hamlet's population drops below ten, it is no longer classified as a settlement. *#### If a hamlet's population rises above five hundred, it is classified as a village. *## A hamlet may officially affiliate itself with a larger town or city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *## A hamlet may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the hamlet if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *## If a hamlet borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the hamlet if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *# A village is a small settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement. *## A village must: *### Have a population of at least five hundred and at most five thousand. *#### If a village's population drops below five hundred, it is classified as a hamlet. *#### If a village's population rises above five thousand, it is classified as a town. *## A village may officially affiliate itself with a larger town or city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *## A village may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the village if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *## If a village borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the village if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *# A town is a mid-sized settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement. *## A town must: *### Have a population of at least five thousand and at most twenty thousand. *#### If a town's population drops below five thousand, it is classified as a village. *#### If a town's population rises above twenty thousand, it is classified as a city. *## A town may have a village or hamlet affiliate with the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *## A town may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *## If a town borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *# A city is a large settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement. *## A city must: *### Have a population of at least twenty thousand. *#### If a town's population drops below twenty thousand, it is classified as a town. *## A city may have a village or hamlet affiliate with the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *## A city may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *## If a city borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *# A neighborhood is a subdivision of a town or city. *## A neighborhood must be a distinct urban area of another, larger settlement. *# In the case that a larger urban area grows and borders a smaller urban area, the smaller settlement may become one or multiple neighborhoods of the larger settlement if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority. *# All settlements in Lovia are managed and built by the state that they are part of. *# Per the Constitution, Congress may override a decision of the state government by a simple majority. This would result in many of the current hamlets to become villages or even towns. However, the missing ranks of hamlets and villages would be replaced by those without a page, such as those at User:Kunarian/List of settlements in Sylvania. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:56, November 6, 2012 (UTC) Your Statement: * If a village's population rises above five thousand, it is classified as a city. Why is the village taking the big jump to a city instead of the small jump to a town? ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 07:27, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :It was a copy error. I fixed it. In general pro. Question: what does "A hamlet may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the hamlet if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority." mean? The way I read it, it sounds like hamlets can have neighborhoods if there is an urban area, but that would be impossible, as hamlets per definition are rural... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:17, November 7, 2012 (UTC) ::I did see that earlier. It might seem unrealistic, but in the case that a smaller urban area borders a hamlet that is more populous the area would become a neighborhood, just because it's only logical. Hamlets are also no longer ''defined as rural anymore, also (they're just supposed to be). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:02, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :::I find this very vague... What is this smaller urban area then? Are you saying that if a neighborhood of f.e. Hurb is next to a hamlet which has more inhabitants than that neighborhood, the neighborhood is moved to the hamlet? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:08, November 7, 2012 (UTC) ::::Not sure what you mean by this, but: say two hamlets grow into each other. If they border, the less populous would become a neighborhood of the more populous. If Hurbanova grew to border a small hamlet, the hamlet would become a neighborhood of Hurbanova. But not until they border. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:10, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :::::I still find it vague, actually I'd say it's the other-way round, but as it says "may", I'm no longer going to complain :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:16, November 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Alright, I changed the shoulds to mays. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:06, November 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::::i'm more pro than contra for this because with the Realistic Census reform this would be sorta the domino effect afterwards. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:13, November 8, 2012 (UTC) 044. Illegalization of drugs #This act makes provision for the regulation of all substances described as 'controlled substances' by Section 1308 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which was created by the US Controlled Substances Act of 1970. ##Responsible prescription of of all listed substances by a medical practitioner licensed to do so by the Blackburn University School of Medicine is legalized. ##Possession of listed substances by unlicensed individuals is a criminal offence and may result in prosecution and punishment in accordance with Article 9.7.13.2. of the Constitution, after the Supreme Court Judges have taken advice from two medical practitioners licensed as described in Section 1.1. of this Act. ###If it can reasonably be established in court that the individual was in possession of listed substances with intent to distribute, the Judges shall take this into account when sentencing. ##Import, export, distribution, possession, and production of all listed substances shall be exclusive to agencies of the Federal Government or organizations licensed by the Government. ###In the latter case, Government officials shall supervise at all times import, export, distribution, possession and production by the organization. Failure by the organization to make every accomodation for said government officials shall result in a fine and withdrawal of its license. ###Any import, export, distribution, possession and production of all listed substances, under conditions other than those described by this Act, is a criminal offence. #Any action taken that results in contralegislation under this Act by any party, where a party is defined as the whole or part of an organization, the whole or part of the Government, or a private individual, whether or not the action is undertaken by the contralegislative party, is illegal. #Any action taken which is described as illegal under the terms of this Act may result in prosecution and punishment in accordance with Article 9.7.13.2. of the Constitution, after the Supreme Court Judges have taken advice from two medical practitioners licensed as described in Section 1.1. of this Act. #Congress, after taking advice from the Blackburn University School of Medicine, retains the right to exempt any listed substance from some or all of the restrictions described in this Act, or to apply the same restrictions, at its discretion, to a non-listed substance. I apologize for the reference to a US law, but I'm not going to list every possible illegal drug. --Semyon 16:39, November 10, 2012 (UTC) is this the final version? I find, saying "We based our law off other laws predescribed in other laws not listed here" would get a contra vote from me no matter what situation. List them out. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:02, November 10, 2012 (UTC) :No, you list them out, if you've got so much spare time on your hands. :P --Semyon 19:05, November 10, 2012 (UTC) . You know why. ;) —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:15, November 10, 2012 (UTC) :Don't have a clue: the same reason as Marcus, or because you're pro legalization? --Semyon 19:05, November 10, 2012 (UTC) ::To continue GAPP's purposeless, and also because I believe that many of these substances don't have a negative effect on society (and all the rest will just be made illegally). I also don't support referencing of US laws. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:17, November 16, 2012 (UTC) @Marcus: simply state that there is an official separate Lovian list, create an article about it with the same contents as the US law, except maybe cannabis and we're done. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:29, November 10, 2012 (UTC) No xD it's just that he wants to illegalize drugs but doesn't give a list. I just wanna know which ones ^_^ Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:44, November 16, 2012 (UTC) Not sure. That's the problem. I guess it's in the "US Controlled Substances Act of 1970" somewhere. . . —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:49, November 16, 2012 (UTC) @Marcus: If we said in this law that there is a "Lovian list of illegal drugs" and create an article with that name. In this article, we state that the list is identical to the US list, but we add a separate paragraph indicating that all the drugs like marijuana are excluded from the Lovian list. I'd say: problem fixed. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:10, November 16, 2012 (UTC) No, not exactly. I want it in writing, in the law. Not on a page later to be changed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:44, November 16, 2012 (UTC) :Why? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:34, November 16, 2012 (UTC) ::Have mercy on the person who has to write the list. I may have mentioned that I study chemistry. Well, there are literally (and I'm using the dictionary definition of 'literally') thousands of chemicals that you can put into your body that will damage you in horrific ways, and possibly give you a high at the same time. What is your problem with referencing the US list? It makes everything so much easier. --Semyon 15:50, November 20, 2012 (UTC) If you ask me, I think that... 1)The drugs should be listed as illegal or controlled e.g. Illegal (some slang here): Cannabis, Heroine, Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Bath Salts, and Ecstacy. Controlled: Alcohol, Tobacco, Nicotine. 2)Cannabis should be illegal 3)Tobacco, nicotine, and alcohol should be listed in the controlled drugs (If possible, make nicotine and tobacco illegal) 4)We should add over-dosage laws to prevent over-dosing --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:33, November 17, 2012 (UTC) User:Ooswesthoesbes/For those unwilling to coorporate --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:19, November 17, 2012 (UTC) I still don't see why we need the government to outlaw drugs. Smart people will not do them, and since healthcare is out of pocket here, dumb people will have to pay for their rehabilitation. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:28, November 17, 2012 (UTC) :I'm sorry but that's rather egoïstic. People can get addicted for a variety of reasons, not all because of their stupidness. You are saying: pay for the consequences or die... As a government, it is our task to protect society - that's the entire society. We should prevent the free distribution of harddrugs (they can be used to overdose people = making murder easier), think about traffic accidents and violence if harddrugs are freely accessible etc... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:38, November 17, 2012 (UTC) ::Agreed, it is. But people use them anything. All that will happen is the trade will go underground. Outlawing doesn't help, see Prohibition in the US. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:51, November 17, 2012 (UTC) :::I don't agree with arguments 'ad prohibition.' Alcohol is now, and was in the 1920s, well-integrated into society, so it's not surprising that a ban simply drove the trade underground. With drugs such as cannibis and heroin, that's not the case, because they don't play a major role in society. By banning them, government still has the power to stop them becoming as integrated as alcohol and nicotine, and in my opinion, should, regardless of the fact that cannabis isn't as harmful or addictive as either. You could still play the libertarian 'what right does the government have to interfere with my life' card, but I'm not a libertarian and I think the government has a duty to protect its citizens, even if it involves taking some freedoms away. Who wants the freedom to damage their bodies with strange chemicals anyway? --Semyon 15:50, November 20, 2012 (UTC) ::::What right does the government have to interfere with my life? Sorry, couldn't resist. In my opinion, banning cannabis but not alcohol and tobacco is hypocrisy. If the government has a duty to protect its citizens, why should it only "protect" them against some substances and not others? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:54, November 20, 2012 (UTC) :::::Well, my argument is that a governmental ban would be successful in protecting citizens in the case of cannabis, but a ban on alcohol and tobacco would not protect citizens but actually worsen the situation. --Semyon 18:18, November 20, 2012 (UTC) ::::::(I'll give in to using colons. This time.) I'd advise you to take a look at the Drug War in the US right now. It's a moderate failure. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:21, November 20, 2012 (UTC) (Counter-concession :P) The US has a notoriously harsh drug policy (and criminal justice policy in general.) What you've said doesn't convince me that drug illegalization would fail, just that drug illegalization implemented in a excessively harsh way will fail. :P I support a lenient approach for 'soft drugs' at least. --Semyon 18:49, November 20, 2012 (UTC) This should be an example of a typical politcial argument for new users :P Happy65 Talk CNP ''' ' 19:17, November 20, 2012 (UTC) It should! Anyway, I still don't see why illegalization is needed. Why not just tax and regulate? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:20, November 20, 2012 (UTC) I am not going to argue in this argument because it is too much of an argument for me to argue with. ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' 19:28, November 20, 2012 (UTC) :Well, arguably. :P --Semyon 22:39, November 20, 2012 (UTC) Still, I'm sorry to say so, but this is the law we need :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:05, November 21, 2012 (UTC) I don't speak Limburgish in the slightist and can't find an online translator to get a basic meaning, so could you translate it? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:16, November 21, 2012 (UTC) :Which part? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:28, November 21, 2012 (UTC) ::The drug law in its entirety. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:41, November 21, 2012 (UTC) :::Ow :P I'll do a translation either today, tomorrow, or the day-after-tomorrow (the last being most likely :P) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:49, November 21, 2012 (UTC) 6c. Regulated concerning drugs # With drugs substances are meant which have an addictive working and by the user are taken in for "enlightening" (don't know the English word :P) reasons. ## For safety and health reasons there are several restrictions in place for drugs, which differ by kind. ### Tobacco (no sell/use below 15, no use on public areas) ### Booze (no sell below 15, unless municipality gives it free under circumstances, such as national holidays/until 5%: 15+, until 15%: 16+: 15% or more: 18+) ### Weed/marijuana (use: 16+, buy: 18+, 16+ may have up to three plants for own production) ### Harddrugs are substances with an empacifying or spirit-enlarging/refreshing working which have an addictive side-effect. #### Possession, use or selling of harddrugs is not allowed. #### Some products with the same working have been excepted for cultural reasons. These products are: ##### Drinks such as tea and coffee and other products containing cafeïne. ##### Freely available medicins such as acetylcysteïne (=aspirine). ##### Things containing alcohol, nicotine or tetrahydrocannabinol. ##### Calming or sleep-bringing things with benzodiapine. ##### For ritual purposes is the use of the mushroom Psilocybe semilanceata allowed. #### Medical personel and other licensed people are an exception to the harddrug section and may use forbidding substances responsibly. Quick translation with bad English, you'll get the point. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 20:13, November 21, 2012 (UTC) I'd say: Change 15 to 16 (16 is square and a multiple of 4), and keep regulation against second hand smoke for tobacco. Also, change "booze" to alcohol, as booze is slang. What about soft drugs? Tobacco and Alcohol are not regulated enough, and Marijuana could be reduced a bit. Up to three plants? So we're going to allow an industry for tobacco but only three plants per person for marijuana. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:52, November 23, 2012 (UTC) :Well, the alcohol and tobacco legislation is already done in Lovia (that's why I only summarized it in the translation, "booze" being a quick translation for "alcoholic beverage" :P). In Mäöres, the Christians decided to trade in strict drug laws for strict marriage laws, so sometimes it might be edgy :P :The main idea for the translation was the last part. If Lovia would take this over, there's no need for a long list from the US law. Simply disregard Mäöres's loose alcohol-, tobacco-, and marijuana law :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:08, November 23, 2012 (UTC) I think that the word you are looking to use in place of 'enlightenment' is 'high'. I disagree with this law though because it is too vague as of now. There are plenty, and I mean plenty of other drugs besides alcohol, herbs and over the counter medicines. Plus I don't like how you're trying to ban basically all addictive drugs, it seems kind of lazy. Aside from that, I think that this can be developed into something much more complete but it will probably take some time. Good work though so far, — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 02:15, November 24, 2012 (UTC) :"high" indeed :P It would help us a lot if you could name a few drugs that shouldn't be illegal, but are illegal now, because of this law. Anyway, in Mäöres, we've been thinking of adding a line which involves prescriptions, so that if a medical guy gives you a prescription, you may take in drugs that are generally forbidden. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:39, November 24, 2012 (UTC) ::Perfect. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:41, November 24, 2012 (UTC) 045. Federal Law: Criminal Law Book: Article 3 - Firearms Act, revision I felt that the law on firearms has some flaws and am proposing a revision to be added to the law and certain sections to be repealed. My main reasoning in this is for some loop holes and over-looked hunting regulation. The biggest thing I saw was that hunters had to be 21; however, many who are under this age love to hunt, e.g. me. Also, only being able to hunt 24 times spread out over the year isn't much of a window. Certain times are much better for hunting than others, and thus hunters must hunt during these times rather than others, and hunt many more than 2 times in a month (I hunt many more than 2 times in November). The loop holes were mostly in some over-looked firearms, e.g. knives and bows. 1. Concealed weapons licenses must be obtained in order to own sheathed knives over 6 inches in length and ballistic knives. :1. All owners must be 21 years of age. :2. Stated weapons are not considered fire arms. 2. Licenses can only be granted to hunters who are of 10 years of age, but all firearms used by anyone under the age of 18 must be legally registered to their legal parents and/or guardians. :1. Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, non-automatic rifles of 50-caliber or fewer, non-automatic shotguns of 10-gauge and greater, non-automatic cross bows, non-automatic hunting bows, and spears are allowed. 3. Switchblade knives are illegal to manufacture and own. 4. Bayonets are illegal to manufacture and own. 5. Bullets containing poison, napalm, and explosives are illegal to manufacture and own. 6. Hunters are legally bound to register with the Ministry of Defense annually to renew their hunting license. Once licenses are renewed, said hunters are legally aloud to hunt for the year. 7. The following sections of Article 3 of the Criminal Law Book are repealed: :1. Section 1.2.2.2 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters who have reached the age of twenty-one on the day the license is to be granted." :2. Section 1.2.2.6 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, rifles and shotguns are allowed." :3. Section 1.2.6 "Hunters are legally bound to register with the Minister of Defense, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month." --Quarantine Zone (talk) 04:02, November 24, 2012 (UTC) :Ten years of age? I don't believe it's responsible to give a gun to a ten-year old kid... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:13, November 24, 2012 (UTC) ::Most firearm injuries aren't among he younger hunters. In America it's 10 years of age and there haven't been any troubles. I could raise to something like 14, but there's no reason a 10 year old couldn't. They'd have to pass the test still, so it would be safe. 21 was just way to high seeing as the hunting community largely made up of those under that age. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:59, November 24, 2012 (UTC) :::I'm not speaking about accidental injuries. I'm more concerned about the fact that teen-agers who know how the handle weapons and who have ready-access to them, use them for massacres, as is very common in the USA. We don't have these situations in the Benelux and I believe that's all because of a more restricted fire arms law. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:53, November 24, 2012 (UTC) ::::America also doesn't require any licenses to own fire arms, and the teenagers would have the same access whether they had the license or not, because it requires their parents to own the gun either way, so this revision wouldn't add Ny problems as such. The license for them would simply allow them to hunt --Quarantine Zone (talk) 20:11, November 24, 2012 (UTC) :::::I don't like the idea of switchblades and bayonets being made illegal to own, nor do I think that it should be necessary to request a hunting license from the Minister of Defense directly. Aside from those things, its certainly an improvement. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 00:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC) ::::::You raise some good points however I have too many problems with this and the Ministry of Defense should disperse licenses not the Minister I agree however the points on bayonets and switchblades need to be expanded upon where you want to go with this and manufacture of weapons needs to be dealt with too. This needs to be written up properly before it can be moved anywhere too. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 00:57, November 25, 2012 (UTC) :::::::The minister/ministry thing was a typo... I'll fix that. It should say ministry. The reason for switchblades and bayonets being illegal was for safety reasons. Switchblades are only good for offensive killing, so there's really no reason to have one. People can still buy spring assisted knives for quick drawing. Bayonets are generally thought of as cruel in modern warfare currently, because they usually lead to slow painful deaths. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:11, November 25, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::I see what you mean, but I'd consider taking a different approach. How about it would be illegal to buy, sell or transport them instead of to own them in general? It would be upsetting to have to get rid of a bayonet that is an old collectible or a family heirloom. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 03:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC) I agree that switchblades and bayonets are unfavorable, but one can argue: guns also lead to slow painful deaths and have safety hazards. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 03:59, November 25, 2012 (UTC) I see we've got the fire arms loving side of the world in Lovia. I'm going to have to oppose this :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:06, November 25, 2012 (UTC) If you really wish to allow "children" to go hunting, would it make sense to have each juvenile, prior to receiving a hunting permit, undergo a obligatory test to "screen" on their behavorial in stress situations? Als I would love to find out how many of these "children" are playing war-games, are there any statistics on that? Aesopos (talk) 10:39, November 25, 2012 (UTC) There are some statistics on children playing war games, but I don't think there are any on children playing war games and hunting. Besides they wouldn't even be able to take the test without their parents permission... Most hunting accidents are due to people not wearing reflective gear, fluorescent orange, or lights at night or shooting at people that look like animals. Safety courses cover the above, but people are still stupid enough to do it. The hunter safety courses cover a lot more than you think. We could make exceptions to relic bayonets. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 13:24, November 25, 2012 (UTC) I don't support allowing "children" to go hunting. At least where I live, there are far too many hunting accidents already, even in situations where you'd think it'd be extremely implausible. 77topaz (talk) 03:09, November 26, 2012 (UTC) 046. Ministry of Intelligence Sorry, but as a small and neutral nation, I think that the Ministry of Defense will be sufficient for covering matters of national security, including intelligence. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 03:03, November 29, 2012 (UTC) I think that the Ministry of Defense is fine also; although, I simply don't want more government expansion. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:05, November 29, 2012 (UTC) We don't need a Minister of Intelligence because there aren't terrorist and dangerous people in Lovia and I don't think state secrets too. We can have private investitators. Granero (talk) 03:17, November 29, 2012 (UTC) I'm all for lessening government, but if the government is to advance or be taken seriously at all in a modern world, I think that we'll need little changes like this. Plus, its just plain awesome. Something that some of you politicians wouldn't recognize if it pulled down your black suit trousers and ran off with them. Besides Time, whats the point of an alliance if we can't ever compromise and support the other party? — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 03:45, November 29, 2012 (UTC) Well, it does say that it would be a government agency, so it'd be okay to have an intelligence section of the Federal Police. The coalition is mainly for economics, also. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 03:49, November 29, 2012 (UTC) :Yes, but you are only seeing half of my above proposal. The foremost job of the service would be to inform Lovian policymakers, a responsibility completely unrelated to policing or war. I'm sure that we could make it a little more clear that the MoI is not bent on warfare by making its primary responsibility overtly and internally maintaining national censuses and performing surveys of the Lovia community. This would be very beneficial in instances where we are looking to draw accurate numbers and statistics to base general studies and graphs on. We currently don't have any agency purposed with this responsibility, and it would be nice to have one. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 20:52, November 29, 2012 (UTC) :: I already don't like the huge amount of ministers we have at the moment however they each serve a vital role and so unless I can work out a nice and comfortable way of combining them then I won't be changing them, so at the moment another ministry is out of the question at the moment. Also statistics are almost always collected by the Ministry/Department concerned, in real life and in Lovia, I see no need for a secret service/intelligence gathering/statistics Ministry however I understand what you are trying to do. Besides the Federal Investigations Bureau covers this area in the manners of a less secret secret service and as a way to gather intelligence. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK''' 21:11, November 29, 2012 (UTC) ::: Who say's youre in charge of the ministries? Not trying to start another argument here, but congress is charge of them. Getting back on topic, I agree with both Granero and Kunarian, We don't have signinficant threats to marit having an intelligence agency and the police is more than capable of carrying out such duties if necessary. HORTON11: • 21:25, November 29, 2012 (UTC)